Browsing by Author "Gokengin, Deniz (6603234930)"

Objectives: The aim of this survey was to describe the current status of HIV care in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and to investigate how close the region is to achieving the UNAIDS 2020 target of 90–90–90. Methods: In 2014, data were collected from 24 Central and Eastern European countries using a 38-item questionnaire. Results: All countries reported mandatory screening of blood and organ donors for HIV. Other groups subjected to targeted screening included people who inject drugs (PWID) (15/24, 62.5%), men who have sex with men (MSM) (14/24, 58.3%), and sex workers (12/24, 50.0%). Only 14 of the 24 countries (58.3%) screened pregnant women. The percentages of late presentation and advanced disease were 40.3% (range 14–80%) and 25.4% (range 9–50%), respectively. There was no difference between countries categorized by income or by region in terms of the percentages of persons presenting late or with advanced disease. The availability of newer antiretroviral drugs (rilpivirine, etravirine, darunavir, maraviroc, raltegravir, dolutegravir) tended to be significantly better with a higher country income status. Ten countries reported initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) regardless of CD4+ T cell count (41.7%), five countries (20.8%) used the threshold of <500 cells/μl, and nine countries (37.5%) used the threshold of <350 cells/μl. Initiation of ART regardless of the CD4+ T cell count was significantly more common among high-income countries than among upper-middle-income and lower-middle-income countries (100% vs. 27.3% and 0%, respectively; p = 0.001). Drugs were provided free of charge in all countries and mostly provided by governments. There were significant discrepancies between countries regarding the follow-up of people living with HIV. Conclusions: There are major disparities in the provision of HIV care among sub-regions in Europe, which should be addressed. More attention in terms of funding, knowledge and experience sharing, and capacity building is required for the resource-limited settings of Central and Eastern Europe. The exact needs should be defined and services scaled up in order to achieve a standard level of care and provide an adequate and sustainable response to the HIV epidemic in this region. © 2018 The Authors

With no expected vaccine for HIV in the near future, we aimed to define the current situation and challenges for pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP and PEP) in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The Euroguidelines CEE Network Group members were invited to respond to a 27-item survey including questions on PrEP (response rate 91.6%). PrEP was licensed in 68.2%; 95 centers offered PrEP and the estimated number on PrEP was around 9000. It was available in daily (40.1%), on-demand (13.3%), or both forms (33.3%). The access rate was <1–80%. Three major barriers for access were lack of knowledge/awareness among people who are in need (59.1%), not being reimbursed (50.0%), and low perception of HIV risk (45.5%). Non-occupational PEP was available in 86.4% and was recommended in the guidelines in 54.5%. It was fully reimbursed in 36.4%, only for accidental exposures in 40.9%, and was not reimbursed in 22.72%. Occupational PEP was available in 95.5% and was reimbursed fully. Although PrEP scale-up in the region has gained momentum, a huge gap exists between those who are in need of and those who can access PrEP. Prompt action is required to address the urgent need for PrEP scale-up in the CEE region. © 2023 by the authors.

With no expected vaccine for HIV in the near future, we aimed to define the current situation and challenges for pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP and PEP) in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The Euroguidelines CEE Network Group members were invited to respond to a 27-item survey including questions on PrEP (response rate 91.6%). PrEP was licensed in 68.2%; 95 centers offered PrEP and the estimated number on PrEP was around 9000. It was available in daily (40.1%), on-demand (13.3%), or both forms (33.3%). The access rate was <1–80%. Three major barriers for access were lack of knowledge/awareness among people who are in need (59.1%), not being reimbursed (50.0%), and low perception of HIV risk (45.5%). Non-occupational PEP was available in 86.4% and was recommended in the guidelines in 54.5%. It was fully reimbursed in 36.4%, only for accidental exposures in 40.9%, and was not reimbursed in 22.72%. Occupational PEP was available in 95.5% and was reimbursed fully. Although PrEP scale-up in the region has gained momentum, a huge gap exists between those who are in need of and those who can access PrEP. Prompt action is required to address the urgent need for PrEP scale-up in the CEE region. © 2023 by the authors.

Objectives: The aim of this international multicentre study was to review potential drug–drug interactions (DDIs) for real-life coadministration of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-specific medications. Methods: The Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe Network Group initiated a retrospective, observational cohort study of HIV-positive patients diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Data were collected through a standardized questionnaire and DDIs were identified using the University of Liverpool's interaction checker. Results: In total, 524 (94.1% of 557) patients received cART at COVID-19 onset: 117 (22.3%) were female, and the median age was 42 (interquartile range 36–50) years. Only 115 (21.9%) patients were hospitalized, of whom 34 required oxygen therapy. The most frequent nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone was tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) with lamivudine or emtricitabine (XTC) (79.3%) along with an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) (68.5%), nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) (17.7%), protease inhibitor (PI) (13.7%) or other (2.5%). In total, 148 (28.2%) patients received COVID-19-specific treatments: corticosteroids (15.7%), favipiravir (7.1%), remdesivir (3.1%), hydroxychloroquine (2.7%), tocilizumab (0.6%) and anakinra (0.2%). In total, 62 DDI episodes were identified in 58 patients (11.8% of the total cohort and 41.9% of the COVID-19-specific treatment group). The use of boosted PIs and elvitegravir accounted for 43 DDIs (29%), whereas NNRTIs were responsible for 14 DDIs (9.5%). Conclusions: In this analysis from the Central and Eastern European region on HIV-positive persons receiving COVID-19-specific treatment, it was found that potential DDIs were common. Although low-dose steroids are mainly used for COVID-19 treatment, comedication with boosted antiretrovirals seems to have the most frequent potential for DDIs. In addition, attention should be paid to NNRTI coadministration. © 2021 British HIV Association.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has been challenging time for medical care, especially in the field of infectious diseases (ID), but it has also provided an opportunity to introduce new solutions in HIV management. Here, we investigated the changes in HIV service provision across Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries before and after the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods: The Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe Network Group consists of experts in the field of ID from 24 countries within the CEE region. Between September 11 and September 29, 2021, the group produced an on-line survey, consisting of 32 questions on models of care among HIV clinics before and after the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. Results: Twenty-three HIV centers from 19 countries (79.2% of all countries invited) participated in the survey. In 69.5% of the countries, there were more than four HIV centers, in three countries there were four centers (21%), and in four countries there was only one HIV center in each country. HIV care was based in ID hospitals plus outpatient clinics (52%), was centralized in big cities (52%), and was publicly financed (96%). Integrated services were available in 21 clinics (91%) with access to specialists other than ID, including psychologists in 71.5% of the centers, psychiatrists in 43%, gynecologists in 47.5%, dermatologists in 52.5%, and social workers in 62% of all clinics. Patient-centered care was provided in 17 centers (74%), allowing consultations and tests to be planned for the same day. Telehealth tools were used in 11 centers (47%) before the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, and in 18 (78%) after (p = 0.36), but were represented mostly by consultations over the telephone or via e-mail. After the COVID-19 outbreak, telehealth was introduced as a new medical tool in nine centers (39%). In five centers (28%), no new services or tools were introduced. Conclusions: As a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, tools such as telehealth have become popularized in CEE countries, challenging the traditional approach to HIV care. These implications need to be further evaluated in order to ascertain the best adaptations, especially for HIV medicine. © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has been challenging time for medical care, especially in the field of infectious diseases (ID), but it has also provided an opportunity to introduce new solutions in HIV management. Here, we investigated the changes in HIV service provision across Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries before and after the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods: The Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe Network Group consists of experts in the field of ID from 24 countries within the CEE region. Between September 11 and September 29, 2021, the group produced an on-line survey, consisting of 32 questions on models of care among HIV clinics before and after the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. Results: Twenty-three HIV centers from 19 countries (79.2% of all countries invited) participated in the survey. In 69.5% of the countries, there were more than four HIV centers, in three countries there were four centers (21%), and in four countries there was only one HIV center in each country. HIV care was based in ID hospitals plus outpatient clinics (52%), was centralized in big cities (52%), and was publicly financed (96%). Integrated services were available in 21 clinics (91%) with access to specialists other than ID, including psychologists in 71.5% of the centers, psychiatrists in 43%, gynecologists in 47.5%, dermatologists in 52.5%, and social workers in 62% of all clinics. Patient-centered care was provided in 17 centers (74%), allowing consultations and tests to be planned for the same day. Telehealth tools were used in 11 centers (47%) before the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, and in 18 (78%) after (p = 0.36), but were represented mostly by consultations over the telephone or via e-mail. After the COVID-19 outbreak, telehealth was introduced as a new medical tool in nine centers (39%). In five centers (28%), no new services or tools were introduced. Conclusions: As a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, tools such as telehealth have become popularized in CEE countries, challenging the traditional approach to HIV care. These implications need to be further evaluated in order to ascertain the best adaptations, especially for HIV medicine. © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

HIV-positive patients may present lungs with multiple infections, which may hinder differential diagnoses and the choice of treatment in the course of COVID-19, especially in countries with limited access to high-standard healthcare. Here, we aim to investigate the association between radiological changes and poor COVID-19 outcomes among HIV-positive patients from Central and Eastern Europe. Between November 2020 and May 2021, the Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe Network Group started collecting observational data on HIV and COVID-19 co-infections. In total, 16 countries from Central and Eastern European submitted data (eCRF) on 557 HIV-positive patients. The current analyses included patients who had a radiological examination performed. Logistic regression models were used to identify the factors associated with death, ICU admission, and partial recovery (poor COVID-19 outcomes). Factors that were significant in the univariate models (p < 0.1) were included in the multivariate model. Radiological data were available for 224 (40.2%) patients, 108 (48.2%) had computed tomography, and 116 (51.8%) had a chest X-ray. Of these, 211 (94.2%) were diagnosed using RT-PCR tests, 212 (94.6%) were symptomatic, 123 (55.6%) were hospitalized, 37 (16.6%) required oxygen therapy, and 28 (13.1%) either died, were admitted to ICU, or only partially recovered. From the radiologist’s description, 138 (61.6%) patients had typical radiological changes, 18 (8.0%) atypical changes, and 68 (30.4%) no changes. In the univariate models, CD4 count (OR = 0.86 [95% CI: 0.76–0.98]), having a comorbidity (2.33 [1.43–3.80]), HCV and/or HBV co-infection (3.17 [1.32–7.60]), being currently employed (0.31 [0.13–0.70]), being on antiretroviral therapy (0.22 [0.08–0.63]), and having typical (3.90 [1.12–13.65]) or atypical (10.8 [2.23– 52.5]) radiological changes were all significantly associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes. In the multivariate model, being on antiretroviral therapy (OR = 0.20 [95% CI:0.05–0.80]) decreased the odds of poor COVID-19 outcomes, while having a comorbidity (2.12 [1.20–3.72]) or either typical (4.23 [1.05–17.0]) or atypical (6.39 [1.03–39.7]) radiological changes (vs. no changes) increased the odds of poor COVID-19 outcomes. Among HIV patients diagnosed with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, the presence of either typical or atypical radiological COVID-19 changes independently predicted poorer outcomes. © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

HIV-positive patients may present lungs with multiple infections, which may hinder differential diagnoses and the choice of treatment in the course of COVID-19, especially in countries with limited access to high-standard healthcare. Here, we aim to investigate the association between radiological changes and poor COVID-19 outcomes among HIV-positive patients from Central and Eastern Europe. Between November 2020 and May 2021, the Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe Network Group started collecting observational data on HIV and COVID-19 co-infections. In total, 16 countries from Central and Eastern European submitted data (eCRF) on 557 HIV-positive patients. The current analyses included patients who had a radiological examination performed. Logistic regression models were used to identify the factors associated with death, ICU admission, and partial recovery (poor COVID-19 outcomes). Factors that were significant in the univariate models (p < 0.1) were included in the multivariate model. Radiological data were available for 224 (40.2%) patients, 108 (48.2%) had computed tomography, and 116 (51.8%) had a chest X-ray. Of these, 211 (94.2%) were diagnosed using RT-PCR tests, 212 (94.6%) were symptomatic, 123 (55.6%) were hospitalized, 37 (16.6%) required oxygen therapy, and 28 (13.1%) either died, were admitted to ICU, or only partially recovered. From the radiologist’s description, 138 (61.6%) patients had typical radiological changes, 18 (8.0%) atypical changes, and 68 (30.4%) no changes. In the univariate models, CD4 count (OR = 0.86 [95% CI: 0.76–0.98]), having a comorbidity (2.33 [1.43–3.80]), HCV and/or HBV co-infection (3.17 [1.32–7.60]), being currently employed (0.31 [0.13–0.70]), being on antiretroviral therapy (0.22 [0.08–0.63]), and having typical (3.90 [1.12–13.65]) or atypical (10.8 [2.23– 52.5]) radiological changes were all significantly associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes. In the multivariate model, being on antiretroviral therapy (OR = 0.20 [95% CI:0.05–0.80]) decreased the odds of poor COVID-19 outcomes, while having a comorbidity (2.12 [1.20–3.72]) or either typical (4.23 [1.05–17.0]) or atypical (6.39 [1.03–39.7]) radiological changes (vs. no changes) increased the odds of poor COVID-19 outcomes. Among HIV patients diagnosed with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, the presence of either typical or atypical radiological COVID-19 changes independently predicted poorer outcomes. © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

(1) Background: Viral hepatitis C (HCV) and viral hepatitis B (HBV) are common co-infections in people living with HIV (PLWH). All PLWH should be vaccinated against HBV and hepatitis A (HAV) and treated for HBV and HCV. We aimed to compare testing, prophylaxis and treatment of viral hepatitis in PLWH in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) in 2019 and 2022. (2) Methods: Data was collected through two on-line surveys conducted in 2019 and 2022 among 18 countries of the Euroguidelines in CEE (ECEE) Network Group. (3) Results: In all 18 countries the standard of care was to screen all PLWH for HBV and HCV both years; screening of HAV was routine in 2019 in 54.5% and in 2022 47.4% of clinics. Vaccination of PLWH against HAV was available in 2019 in 16.7%, in 2022 in 22.2% countries. Vaccination against HBV was available routinely and free of charge in 50% of clinics both in 2019 and 2022. In HIV/HBV co-infected the choice of NRTI was tenofovir-based in 94.4% of countries in both years. All clinics that responded had access to direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) but 50% still had limitations for treatment. (4) Conclusions: Although testing for HBV and HCV was good, testing for HAV is insufficient. Vaccination against HBV and especially against HAV has room for improvement; furthermore, HCV treatment access needs to overcome restrictions. © 2023 by the authors.

(1) Background: Viral hepatitis C (HCV) and viral hepatitis B (HBV) are common co-infections in people living with HIV (PLWH). All PLWH should be vaccinated against HBV and hepatitis A (HAV) and treated for HBV and HCV. We aimed to compare testing, prophylaxis and treatment of viral hepatitis in PLWH in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) in 2019 and 2022. (2) Methods: Data was collected through two on-line surveys conducted in 2019 and 2022 among 18 countries of the Euroguidelines in CEE (ECEE) Network Group. (3) Results: In all 18 countries the standard of care was to screen all PLWH for HBV and HCV both years; screening of HAV was routine in 2019 in 54.5% and in 2022 47.4% of clinics. Vaccination of PLWH against HAV was available in 2019 in 16.7%, in 2022 in 22.2% countries. Vaccination against HBV was available routinely and free of charge in 50% of clinics both in 2019 and 2022. In HIV/HBV co-infected the choice of NRTI was tenofovir-based in 94.4% of countries in both years. All clinics that responded had access to direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) but 50% still had limitations for treatment. (4) Conclusions: Although testing for HBV and HCV was good, testing for HAV is insufficient. Vaccination against HBV and especially against HAV has room for improvement; furthermore, HCV treatment access needs to overcome restrictions. © 2023 by the authors.